ok, who stole flint's login?

What if the lady is a 'hippie chick' (i.e. doesn't shave), and the guy is a body builder contestant (does shave)? You might want to qualify that sentence :)

The thread moved off on this issue when I questioned Jeff's view that homosexuality was a choice. Others then brought up the issue of AIDS. Who cares about AIDS in a discussion of whether it is a choice or not? People do stupid stuff to their bodies all the time. So what.

My point is that it is not a choice. Yet we, (yes Jeff, I go to mass every Sunday) want to put restrictions on what two adults want to do in their private lives. Homosexual couples have the same partnering issues as heterosexuals. Some sustain, some break up.

If you want to purport that marriage is only for heterosexuals because it is a religious act, then you need to make it such. Then the government has no business issuing marriage licenses in that case. And many marriages should be recategorized as civil unions, because they weren't performed in a church. Actually, I like that idea.

I agree with everything you say, David. At the end of the day, we all decide who we are going to support. Those of us in the middle ground, neither blue nor red but rather some shade of purple, have the toughest time making that choice. It used to be easier to straddle the fence and choose a mix from both sides. In today's world of very divisive, polarizing issues, it seems the choice has been easier, if not far less comfortable to make.

Many of us focus on issues that we either cannot live without or cannot live with when making our choices at the polls. The very polarizing issues. It seems liberalism, by its very nature and definition, introduces far more of them than conservatism. Big surprise; that's what we would expect, and hope for. Today's liberal movement has simply chosen issues that are polarizing in a way that drives people away from them. They have chosen unpopular issues of dubious merit to most of us.

I would love to see the debate swing back towards the economy, foriegn relations, jobs, healthcare, and the like. It's ridiculous which divisive issues we have become focused upon that really do not affect that many of us, but have clouded and obscured the debate on the important issues. These diversions have been introduced by the left in the absence of any real direction on more important issues. The right has used them masterfully to distract us from their incompetence on the more important issues. So when faced with a lack of direction on the one side, incompetence on the other, and very divisive issues at the forefront, many pledge their allegiance to the side that represents their feelings on those divisive issues. And the liberal (that's actually what I meant in my last post, not yours in particular) numbers continue to shrink as a result. A result of the issues they have chosen, and capitalization of those issues by the right, who seem more in touch with the moral compass of the country at the moment.

Wow, a lot has transpired since I last posted to this thread.

Homosexuality has been around since before recorded history. It exists in both humans and animals. True, if 100% of a species were homosexual, that species dies out, but homosexuality only occurs in a small, single digit percentage of the population. It always has and it always will. It’s part of nature. Get used to it.

Anyone who still things that AIDS is a gay disease has not been following the news on the disease. The vast majority of new AIDS cases these days is in heterosexuals. And to whoever it was that said that a significant portion of gay men engage in sex with multiple partners, that has been proven wrong. A small percentage, yes, just like a small percentage of heterosexuals engage in sex with multiple partners. Most gays are in committed relationships. They just don’t show up when studies are done on the gay population.

I still have not seen an answer to the statements that gays are demanding more rights than heterosexuals. What right are they asking for that we don’t have? It’s only fair that everyone gets to marry the person of their choice.

As for the parenting debate: if what you are interested in is good parenting, then try to form laws based on that. You cannot have a child until you pass some test and get a license, or whatever. There are plenty of bad heterosexual parents out there. I would guess that any homosexual couple that goes through the long process of adoption will make better parents than some heterosexual couple that gets pregnant by accident and doesn’t really want the child. How many children fall into this category? Far more than are adopted by loving gay couples.

It has never been shown that homosexuality (between consenting adults) causes any harm to others. Time and again judges have ruled in favor of gay rights based on this. Those trying to restrict the rights of gays have never demonstrated any proof of harm. As one judge, in a gay rights case, put it recently: “Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury.”

The only thing that those against gay marriage have is their own discomfort with it. It is outside their vision of what the world should be like.

Think about this. We all have our favorite things to do in the privacy of our own bedrooms. I can guarantee that each of us has a habit that someone else considers to be an aberration, or unnatural, or whatever. Some think that even leaving the lights on is an aberration (When I was in high school, one of my teachers confessed to me that he had never seen his wife naked). Others consider anything but the missionary position to be abnormal, and yet another group thinks sex should be for procreation only. Don’t enjoy it! And don’t talk about oral or anal to some, they will be totally disgusted.

How would you like it if someone said you are not allowed to do X in the bedroom? I’m sure you wouldn’t. If a man and a woman are allowed to do X, shouldn’t two men, or two women, be allowed to do X as well? That right has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

Just like doing X in the bedroom is outside some peoples vision of the way the world should be, so is gay marriage.

And if I can make a life long commitment, signed and sealed by the government, in front of family and friends, officiated by clergy or government official, to the person I choose, shouldn’t everyone have that right?

Consider the golden rule. We all have a right to do X in the privacy of our own bedrooms. We should all have a right to marry the person of our choice. And the golden rule also rules out pedophilia, theft, murder, or any other crime.

Treat others how you would like yourself to be treated.

Never got it, but then am not in the most internet friendly place in the world. Back in the semi real world tomorrow (Beruit) and will have better internet access there.

Resend to the same email address but put in caps in the subject "Pelican 911 Shaun." Might send a dupe to my PM box here at Pelican. This way you cannot say that "I sent it, why didnt you get it" and so on. This is getting old.

If you continue with this crap ("bazaar insistence" you just posted) our first meeting might not be a friendly one.

Joe A

PS Learn to click the "spell check" button. Bazaar is a place you shop... and not the meaning you wanted.

Keith, can do you one better! As a young pup, aged 15, I went to Europe to play boy bike racer. We spent 3 months riding bikes in 17 countries and fell in love with the place then.

Became friends with a few European ladies while there and found out the hard way that they do not shave. It was fun research but we persisted. :)

After spending a fair amount of time with these wonderful ladies it was almost a shock to return home to all the fluffy, frilly, shaved and coiffured girls back home. Jut not as "natural" so to speak...

Oh forgot... we as bike racers did shave our legs and arms so it was funny for them as well! Guess its better to say that I can be very adaptable unless she has a "johnson" so to speak.

Joe A

oh, it'll be a friendly one Joe, I'm really looking forward to patting that bald head of yours. :D

I am PM'ing you now, lest your your dog in Beirut eats another of my emails to you. Perhaps that's where your first request for me to contact you went? :)

BTW, spellchecking won't help bazaar vs. bizarre (man am I embarassed) but spellchecking would help in Beirut, unless there's a Beruit somewhere else in the ME we don't know about.

Cheers!

Why the big nickers in a twist about homosexuality & whether they get married or not? It sounds like it has some kind of impact on health benefits for you guys. Is this correct? I think over here long term partners (hetro, homo whatever) who are not married are afforded the same legal 'de-facto' standing although I seem to think this has only been a recent development.

What's a little amusing to me is to see how much of a big issue this can be when it concerns a very small proportion of the population. I fail to see how any laws applying to this particular minority group would have a major impact on society. Perhaps that's just a sign of short sightedness on my part but I feel fairly indifferent to most of the arguments presented on this thread.

I can understand if peole wish to keep the ceremony of 'marriage' to hetrosexual couples only but I think legal and social equality for ALL people can occur whethre they have access to a traditional wedding ceremony or not.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1133463677.jpg

Kang that is a very long and well written post which presents many "facts" but no support for those "facts".

--Please post data that shows that the vast majority of new HIV cases in the US is in heterosexual people.

--I like how you discount the idea that homosexuals are more promiscuous overall than heterosexuals, which has been shown in studies, by saying that the monogamous ones just "don't show up" for the study...

--I still don't buy the argument of homsexuality being in animals, therefore it's just "natural". Animals eat their young too...

--The argument about people being allowed to marry the person of their choice doesn't really stand up either. Last I checked you still couldn't marry your sister....even in Arkansas. Polygamy is also illegal. You can't marry someone who is 6 years old, even if you and the 6 year old are in a committed relationship (not to mention that you will go to jail for it). Please understand that I am not equating homosexuality to incest, polygamy or statutory rape. Just pointing out that saying that everyone should be able to marry who they want because it's "Fair" doesn't quite wash...

--And you can't really equate gay marriage to invading someone's ability to do "X" in the bedroom. No one is saying that gay people can't be gay, heck no one is even saying they can't have a lifelong committed relationship. Just don't redefine marriage.

So is homosexuality a choice or not?

What do you think of having civil unions outside of church and marriages only in church? If that came to pass, would you accept same legal rights for both groups?

Actually Rick did say that civil union was fine by him. So I propose we put this issue to bed with the following:

marriage: in a church, between man and woman

civil union: outside church, between man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman

Both are afforded equal tax/benefits status under the law.

Everybody happy? :)

Now can we talk about the economy or education?

We have all seen the data and the conclusions are innescapable. You posted the data and links to the sources, which is a fairly reasonable approach.

Contrast that with the reaction: unsupported claims contrary to the data presented. Discounting some of the data because part of the surveyed population "didn't show up"; also unsubstantiated.

It would seem to me the monogamous gays would want to show up badly enough to take any measure necessary to ensure they do. They would presumably be the ones most interested in changing their public image. And the most responsible, therefore the most likely to respond.

Yet another endearing liberal trait: blow off data inconsistant with your unsupported, but heartfelt views. Don't let anything as inconvenient as facts and data cloud your judgement, now....

nostatic, Now if we just get it to be law.

Education? Hum, The usual answer is that all teachers are liberal, commies, trying to undermine American values. They are overpaid, under-worked, barely educated, union members living off the dime of all the hard working people in the world. Public education is the cause of evil in the worldd, and we must abolish it.

Economy. Taxes should be outlawed, they stimy investment and growth, and provide a supply of money for pork distribution by corrupt politicans. Sorry, I meant all democratic politicians. Deficit spending is OK as long as Bush does it, and it is really Clinton's fault anyhow.

Just cutting to the chase of Mul's and Fint's posts to save time.

Yay!! See we can agree on things Nostatic...absolutely would be very happy with that and I would venture to say that the majority of Americans would find no fault with that approach as well.

The dictionary definition of Natural is:

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Since homosexuality is present in and produced by nature, it is “natural.”

This would be great, except that the vast majority of existing marriages are marriages by law. If you could somehow revert existing marriages into civil unions, or at lease have all non-church marriages from this point on be called civil unions, then it might work. But until that happens, gay couples will always “want what they have.” And unless you can prove there is some harm from it, or find some reason to deny equal treatment under the law, they will eventually get it. They are getting it more and more these days. Just today South Africa joined in in allowing gay marriages.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the repeated comment that these kinds of issues are causing moderate liberals to separate themselves from the far left, there is a valid point there. Of course, the same thing is happening with moderate conservatives and the far right.

We seem to be divided more than ever before these days. The pendulum in the USA took a big swing to the right after 9/11. The current administration is a major factor in this as well. Bush, terrorism, Iraq, 9/11, Pat Robertson, abortion, gay marriage, etc, have all brought out the far right. The response to this is that the far left has become defensive and much more vocal. This is what is really starting these “fights.”

Sooner or later, the pendulum will swing back toward the middle. I think most of us agree that is a better place than either the far right or far left. I know I do.

I had a gut feel during the Terry Schaivo case that the pendulum had swung about as far to the right as it was going to get. When the government stepped into that issue, many people, including those on the right, objected. Something like 80% of the people thought that the government overstepped their bounds. The far right lost a lot of moderate conservatives during this issue.

It seems to me now that my gut feel was correct, although we won’t really know for a couple years. The pendulum seems to be hovering where it is right now, if not swinging a bit back towards the middle. It certainly hasn’t gone any further right. Bush is getting his lowest ratings ever, republicans are getting indicted, and more and more democrats are getting elected.

The 2006 elections will be a big indicator. Time will tell. I certainly hope the nation can become much more united than it is now. That will be better for everyone, right and left both.

Kang you hit it on the head. The gay community "wants what they have". That is why I would be surprised if they would accept a civil union that is identical to marriage in all legal and financial aspects but isn't called "marriage". I'd love to see that proposal floated by a politician just to see how the gay community would react. Wanna bet they would find some way to oppose it?

And I agree with your statement that the pendulum has swung to the right since 9/11. I think, though, that there are multiple pendulums at work. There is the short term one which is the one you spoke of. I would submit, however, that the longer term pendulum has been swung about as far left as it will go. I mean the pendulum that started its move to the left back in the 60s and hasn't stopped yet. Overall our country has been moving left since the 60s and I think that this last election (with the appearance of the missing 4 million voters that won it for Bush) shows that the conservatives in this country are finally getting their fill of the persistent attack on traditional values and are going to be more vocal in the future.

"Marrying the same sex is one. It is legal for straight men and for gay men to marry a woman. It is not legal for straight men or gay men to marry a man. If gay men are asking to marry gay men, they are indeed asking for "special rights.'"

Sounds like a similar argument for not giving blacks "special rights" prior to the civil rights era (and since).

What heterosexual rights are usurped by allowing gays to marry and enjoy the same financial, benefits and rights of survivorship? The answer, "because it's not right/abnormal/Christian/moral/etc." is subjective and not a valid reason. I'd like to know.

Sherwood

I certainly didn't and don't claim that a mother and father are "absolutely required", only that they are preferred when available.
My only point is that the ideal should be for a heterosexual couple (mother + father) to raise children, and, when possible, we should strive for the ideal. That doesn't mean that single parents can't do a good job, but it's not the ideal. When placing kids up for adoption we should look for the *best* situations available. When good, stable, married hetero couples are waiting to adopt, the best option is not going to be a single person, or a gay or lesbian couple.